Many do. And that’s why they prohibit so many things. That’s my answer to Mama’s question.

Many do care about their gene pool survival and instinctively opposes anything that get in the way of it. They’re hardwired to do so by their genes. Think of them like pests. Pests just have to survive by eating food. The same way religious bigots just have to prohibit free sex to persuade women into marriage. They’re like pests.

And when libertarian choose to be childless, I guess non libertarian have won then. Then you wonder why most people are not libertarian. They’re decendant of those who aren’t.

And you, I guess the faithful have won again. They made you realize that you don’t really want to survive in the gene pool anyway.

Looks like everybody win. If the poor stop making kids, ah we need more population. If the productive start making kids, ah the world is full. Shouldn’t that be the other way around?

I mean, price of cars are artificially made high by prohibition of import. The same way cost of raising children is artificially made high by alimony, child support (that often don’t go to the child), etc. That’s not market mechanism. If government want kids to be supported, government should impose a constant obligation, say $5k/year per child, irrelevant of the parents’ wealth. The purpose of higher child support cost for the rich is to punish the rich for making kids. You fearing that punishment then become childless.

As for ideas that I want to leave on, it’s simple.

1. Just like we should stop producing B&W TV when demands for it no longer exist, the same way we should stop producing people that are unemployed. Humans’ reproduction, as well as production of anything, should match market demand.
2. Like TV, the market will sort of take care of it. Just get rid welfare program, and women that pick the rich will have more grandchildren. Those who produces what the market want will be richer. They can “hire” more women to make more kids should they choose, or inherit more money to each of those kids. Or just have fun all they want. Redistribution of wealth makes welfare parasites attractive for women. How does that make you feel ha?

However, there doesn’t seem to be a market for LCD manufacturers. There is a huge underground market but nothing much is visible.

“No body wants big LCD TV,” say black and white TV manufacturers.

“Thinking of customers as LCD TV buying object is offensive,” say customers that are not attractive enough to get an LCD.

“The invisible flying teapot hate LCD,” say pro black and white TV religious fundamentalists. “Our proof is faith, and our willingness to die and kill those who disagree,” says one of them while waving a suicide bomb vest. “By the way, do you agree?” Ask one of them.

“LCD TV is so bad, no customers would possibly want it anyway and hence must be prohibited,” say black and white TV sellers. “Also all customers want black and white TV anyway.”

“But then, why not let customers choose?” ask LCD sellers, many of which don’t know what is really going on. “Customers maximize their profit right? If all consensual options are legal, they will automatically pick what’s best for them,” say LCD sellers, not knowing the real issue.

“Well, even though LCD TV is so bad compared to black and white TV, customers would actually buy LCD if both can be done legally and openly under LCD’s customers’ exploitation schemes,” say black and white TV sellers.

“How the hell we know it’s bad if not by letting customers decide?” ask LCD manufacturers.

“Well, why don’t we ask?” say BWTV manufacturers, “Of course any customers that want LCD rather than black and white TV is a slut we need to rehabilitate.”

“I am not a slut,” say most customers.

“See. Most customers chose B&W TV,” say BWTV manufacturers

“Well, that’s not a fair survey here,” say LCD manufacturers, “Look, plenty of those sluts are willing to break the law and buy LCD anyway in underground market. Many of which are attractive enough to get a high percentile black and white TV. Customers must strongly prefer LCD compared to black and white TV.”

“Customers wanting LCD compared to black and white TV is just your opinion. The truth is most customers pick black and white TV” say BWTV manufacturers.

“Well, that’s because most popular better alternatives to B&W TV are illegal. Why not legalize all and see what customers would choose.” say LCD manufacturers.

“We can’t let them be legal because LCD is so bad. Those few poor souls that buy LCD must have done so out of coercion and deception.” say B&W TV sellers.

There we go, a never ending argument in favor of legalization and against it, where the real issue will never show up.

Well not simply. We have very jealous customers whose main agenda is to prevent other customers from getting better TV. Customers’ interest, as a collective goal, defined by the interest of customers that speak the loudest, is still in prevention of LCD legalization.

“Legalization of LCD will put power on the hand of LCD manufacturers to exploit hapless customers whose only option is black and white TV,” says a loud customer representative representing customers too ugly for LCD manufacturers to deal with.

“They’re not our target market anyway, why should we care what those ugly customers bitch about?” Say an LCD manufacturer telling all the other TV peddlers.

“Thinking that customers are LCD consuming object is offensive. You effectively judge what all customers are. Not all customers want LCD. Some do want black and white TV,” say other thoroughly brainwashed TV peddlers. “No body is an expert at what customers want. Different customers want different thing,” added dumb brainwashed TV peddlers.

“Okay, but those who want black and white TV are not my target market anyway. Why the hell should I care what they want. They’re not even pretty even if they do want LCDs, it still won’t work out,” answer one LCD sellers that have done comprehensive customers’ preference and want more customers.

Perhaps there is another solution. “What we need is more government help to allow customers to make their own TV,” says a self serving customer that also like to make home made patched up TV because no TV sellers want to sell their TV to them.

“Customers don’t make their own TV,” say an evolutionist, “They have successfully reproduce through out millions of generation without any significant evolutionary pressure to make their own TV.”

“Customers’ made TV fall below typical market standard. And yet we have all these bullshit regulations forcing buyers to value their lesser work at the same price,” complain most TV manufacturers, “Not to mention that each customer would take 9 months paid leave just to make one TV, while my typical TV suppliers don’t need TV making paid leave.”

“Customers are good at something else, like buying TV.” says LCD manufacturers, “They should let TV manufacturing to us.”

Finally LCD manufacturers find customers oversea and customers oversea often come to the land with the best TV manufacturers to get the best TV avoiding all those argument. Now customers on a land with better TV will have to compete with cheaper customers with no TV.

“We got to protect those customers from TV manufacturers.” say some customers, “Some of those traveling customers have no TV where they come from and hence, they are effectively forced to move here just to get better TV.”

“That is force.” says local customers that find price of TV skyrocketing everywhere due to this bootleg import of foreign customers, “We should prohibit that.”

I mean, c’mon. We know how this will really end. B&W TV will just go extinct. So all customers that can’t afford LCD. B&W TV manufacturers are going bankrupt anyway. 50% of TV in US are not black and white as can be seen at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5056489/Nearly-half-of-children-born-out-of-wedlock-official-figures-show.html and customers avoid bankrupt manufacturers like plague. Those who don’t will go poof with TV they choose. Soon all the other countries will follow.

The same goes for any inefficient system. Eventually customers will specialize on what they’re good at and simply buy TV from the best TV producers.

The question is, why isn’t this work faster? Well, a few articles like this going around the world, with a little bandwidth, and B&W TV’s fate will be sealed.

Even though it may not (in fact my understanding from evolutionary biology says it’s not) what most girls seek in mate.

Say Andrew and Bob like Cindy.

Andrew offer wealth.
Bob offer love and loyalty.

Notice that it’s expensive for the 2 to switch their offer.

Andrew is a rich stud that earns $1 million a month. Loving Cindy is arguably committing at least $500k a month. At least that’s what courts would say. Also Andrew is a stud with so many women around him. Offering loyalty means very high opportunity cost.

Bob is poor and ugly. Offering love is cheap for Bob. Bob can’t offer a lot of money obviously. Also loyalty is also cheaper for Bob.

Which one Cindy will choose. Well, who knows. I would say Andrew for sure if both offers are legal.

But here is the catch.

Government claim that prostitution is so bad and love and loyalty is so good that Andrew’s offer must be illegal.

1. It’s bad drug. We agree.
2. They sucks but still fit the taste of some. Still let the market decide.
3. It’s there just to get rid competition from some possibly better and safer drugs. I strongly disagree.

Government prohibit buying cars from China
1. Chinese cars sucks. We agree.
2. They sucks but still fit the taste of some. Still let the market decide.
3. It’s there just to get rid competition from some possibly better and cheaper car offers. I strongly disagree.

Government prohibit asian foods citing health concern
1. Asian food sucks. We agree
2. It sucks but could fit the taste of some. So let the market decide.
3. It’s just pressure to get rid competition from some possibly better and tastier food. I strongly disagree.

Government prohibit prostitution, polygamy and contract marriage.
1. Prostitution sucks. We agree
2. Prostitution sucks but maybe good for some. Still let the market decice.
3. It’s just pressure to get rid competition from some possibly fairer and preferable contract. I strongly disagree.

Man and women get married because government prohibits MOST of the better popular alternatives. In Afganistan, for example, women can’t even work and the only alternative is get married or starved to death. Marriage is the only government approved prostitution. That’s pretty bad for a person whose main asset is her cunt that’ll expire when she’s 35.

In Western country you can do free sex. However, that means she doesn’t get financial support, which is just not her market price is. I

Yes contract should be honored. This is a grey area. And I understand that most males in US hate no force divorce. With no fault divorce and laws against marital rape, marriage simply means she got your money and screw someone else and you’re at her mercy. In US, I won’t get married. However, most women in US have other choice. Free sex. Your money is still useful, namely to signal gene quality and pay child support (or you can do cohabitation agreement). In Indonesia, though not technically illegal, free sex is dangerous.

Let’s put it this way. Say you’re a doctor. The only way you can sell your medical expertise is in government’s hospital. Does that mean government force you to work for government? Marriage is more like that. Hot girls got a cunt, the only way they can sell their cunt is in marriage in conservative country. That’s in a sense like forced marriage isn’t it?

In western civilization they can’t even do that because sex is not part of marriage contract. What’s the point of having one of the most desirable resources in the world (cunt) if you can’t rent or sell it? Of course in US it simply means most males don’t want to marry. A good progress in my opinion. Most males don’t get married means many of those jerks that can’t compete won’t get laid and will go extinct. Be an omega males guy. The alpha males are dying. Either left or right, be winners, don’t be whining losers.

I see that you all blamed hot girls for not being fair. Can they be fair? Can they agree to a fair contract with you? They can’t.

Do you write your marriage contract?

Are material terms of marriage contract explicit? I know it’s your fault for not reading contract before signing it. However, it’s what almost everyone do. We simply agree to get married and society decides what it really means. From what I see in this forum, most of us, including you, do not like societies’ marriage terms right? You don’t like society’s terms, so why you get married?

What about alternative contracts? Are you free to make a better more straight forward contract? For example, the muslims have polygamy and short term marriage? Can you do that instead? What about prostitution? That’s a contract to. Can you make that instead? What about cohabitation agreement (you should do this instead, last time I check it’s still legal).

That’s why marriage contracts are not like usual contract. Virtually all other options are full with governments’ created problem.

Whether men and women should have a right to make that kind of lifetime commitment is a little grey. It’s like whether you have a right to sell your self as a slave. One thing for sure is I do not see why that right should be more cherished or important than women’s right to be a prostitute or to commit to a short term marriage, polygamy, polyandry, orgy, stripper, or go oversea to find richer smarter males.

Maybe it’s hard to free that TO1. However, I think it’s pretty libertarian to ensure that other options besides life long monogamous marriage gets “equal treatment” and protection too. When that happen, I do not think marriage will be popular.

Look at communist countries. Wealth disparities is politically incorrect. So the one that’s rich are the one that’s mean. In capitalistic countries, the nice guy get rich. Those who are nice have lots of friends that workers and customers and so on. Those who productively serve societies will get a lot in return, such as money which they can use to buy TV.

The same way in monogamous countries, (I am not muslim by the way), gene pool survival disparity is politically incorrect. So normally the one successful in the gene pool are the one that means. If we liberalize those concepts, nice guys will have much better chance.

The following are what we can fight for in

1. Elimination/reduction of welfare and government’s socialized program. Welfare gives too much power to women. Women that don’t pick you shouldn’t get your money. The money comes with the cock. Sure she has her cunt. Well, you got your cash. Make sure it goes to and only to your biological children. Welfare not only took money from the productive, but took women too. Women are more likely to pick welfare recipients when those recipients are proven able to extort money from wimpy capitalists.
2. Consensual women trafficking. All males in rich countries should support this. You’re rich. Women prefer the rich. You do not need to be deceptive or forceful to get a lot of beautiful women. A long time ago Nazis killed jews. Those Nazis couldn’t kill a lot of jews if the jews can easily immigrate to US, Shanghai, etc. The same way, why bitch about girls getting stoned in Iran? Get them here. However, you won’t do that out of altruism. You need intensive. What can those girls become? Sex workers. Keep it real. If it’s consensual, it’s win win and it should be legal.
3. Privatization of marriage. Beatty Chadwick go to jail for 14 years for not paying his ex wife 2 million dollars. Is that part of marital vows? Did Beatty ever agreed to pay her ex wife 2 million dollars? Hell, even sex is not part of marital vow. The marital vows are so vagues and then societies decide what it actually means. It doesn’t match the need of girls and guys. I do not have exclusive agreement with Mc Donald. Why should I have one with my wife?
4. Legalization of prostitution. It’s essentially the same with 3. Marriage is, after all, a type of prostitution.
5. Minimum child support. Currently nice guys that make $1 million dollars/year cannot make kids without risking his whole wealth for the next 18 years. Well if the poor can make kids and don’t pay for it, why nice rich productive guys cannot?

Somebody PM me and I introduced them to my high school friends and forward the email to my cousins. Looks like my cousins hated me now. Looks like I over estimate white males’ sex appeal, especially when they’re half way across the globe.

But there are other forums where we exchange nochan (nomor cantik/pretty numbers) of females. I don’t show it here because we can’t promote other forums. Well the forums are in Indonesian but everybody can speak english. We just pretend we don’t by speaking Indonesians there. Just hang out on some Indonesian forums and you’ll speak with lots of girls there. Those that can speak english are usually from the upper class.

And yea, getting your cock jerked off by beautiful villages girls are like $20 in Indonesia and full striptease night long with 16 fully naked girls are like $10.

I think the problem is the girl has low social status (villagers). Indonesia have high gini index, and very status conscious. A lot of beautiful girls from poor family are willing to do almost anything.

Women market value are not always their beauty but also the wealth of men around them.

My point is some beautiful goddesses are truly underpriced. Laws “protecting women” from consensual exploitation are really there to keep their price low. In fact, if you search for word “co alpha” you’ll see men on the other side discussing this very same idea. Except that they see it positively rather than negatively.

Hence, anyone with money can get women easily in large quantities. It’s money you should seek, not women. Learn from Jews. Seek money first with all ways to earn it and women will be added to you (by God?). Yes the girls are wanting it. Watch out for the norms and the laws though.

I think God created women to love rich cocks so all kids have rich dads. Okay, I actually believe the evolutionary psychology explanation more, but that one will do. Why wouldn’t HE?

What I always want to suggest is I should help rich smart males to exploit poor women with no better choice. Women prefer the rich anyway. Like workers, customers, and everyone else, women want to be exploited by capitalists. If they don’t, those women will be exploited anyway by lesser cocks that value those womens’ choice less.

In fact, in general, we should see people selfishly as what they are most useful to us. A programmer that can sweep floor should be seen as a programmer rather than a floor sweeper. The same way, a women that can be used as both breeding tools and a math teacher should be seen as breeding tools. The former simply has higher economic value. It’ll be insulting to think of hot women as teachers, workers, programmers, secretaries, friends, when they can be something far more. Selfish is good right? And greed is awesome. Duh?

Another reason why I advocated that we all think that women as sex object is because when we don’t, again and again, I see that she ended up being sex objects anyway, on the hand of some lesser males that value her freedom far less than us.

For example, say American males do not import third world women into becoming sex workers in US. Then those women will end up staying in a poor country with her clits cut and forced to wear burqha and stuff. However, if American males simply allow those women to be a stripper, for example, then all beautiful girls all over the world will be free from oppression. Any countries that insist on oppressing them will see their prettiest girls go to US. Of course, american females won’t allow it because they too hate competition.

Why bitch about some women getting stoned in Iran? Why not allow all hot babes there to immigrate to US? Of course you need an intensive to do so. What value can those hot babes give? They don’t even speak english. What value? Teaching? No. think again.

I bet most endangered species are endangered because we can’t eat them. I am not seeing chicken and cows going extinct any time soon. The same for women here. Capitalistic exploitation is a win win solution. When we selfishly maximize our profit, often we also maximize everyone’s else profit. What part did you disagree?

By the way, did you read the articles I mentioned?

Mama, you’re new here. What do you think? Now not only you’re more than sex object, you could be the only actual libertarian female expert on what females want here.